Postulate: All things which are indistinguishable must be judged the same.

This is clear: treating equivalent things differently means basing one's treatment of the things not on any of their actual qualities, but rather on nothing, for no qualities are different between the things so as to give rise to a basis for these different treatments. If, then, one thing is judged as bad, then all equivalent things are equally bad.

I must, then, show that all Abrahamic religions are equivalent in every way. This is incredibly easy to do and takes little time.

The concept of any God is a contradiction in terms, for omnipotence and infinite power in general cannot be defined; the infinite cannot be grasped by the finite, for, to grasp the nature of the infinite, one must be able to transcend it and look at it in its totality, which requires an escape from the grasp of the infinite. Any professed knowledge of the infinite must, then, be nonsense. The proposition "An omnipotent God exists," then, is impossible to uphold.

All tenets of Abrahamic religions follow from God. If their common basis is irrational, so too must everything which follows from it. For it does not matter how true a conclusion is if its justification is nonsense; a conclusion is only meaningful if it is tied to reality at its root.

Sense:

1. All men are mortal
2. Socrates is a man
C. Socrates is mortal

Nonsense:

1. All ducks are red
2. Socrates is dead, and we have killed him
C. Socrates is mortal

The conclusions of both rely on and are inexorably linked to their premises, and it can hardly be said that they both hold the same relation to reality. For when a conclusion is spoken, all prior groundwork is implied.

If everything which follows from the premiss of an omnipotent God is nonsense, and if all Abrahamic religions follow from the premiss of an omnipotent God, all Abrahamic religions must be nonsense.

What is nonsense? Nonsense is that which has no sense, sense being what a proposition pictures. If, then, a nonsensical proposition pictures nothing, it cannot be distinguishable from other nonsensical propositions. Nonsense is simply the lack of sense; there are no other qualities which can be ascribed to it, for, if there were, the nonsense would be sense. Therefore, all propositions of nonsense are equally empty and have no differences except in arbitrary linguistic form.

If the totality of Abrahamic religions is, then, nonsense, then they must all be judged equally; there is nothing which sets any individual nonsensical proposition apart from the others. Ergo, all are equally bad. Q.E.D.

1. False. An infinite propriety is indeed definable, otherwise we wouldn’t have something called Set Theory or Calculus or… Here is an example, the infinite series: Sum [1 > ∞] [1/2^n] = 1. Looks pretty definable to me. This pretty much negates the entirety of Pro’s case. Nonetheless, let’s take this few steps further.

2. False, for Pro’s concept of Omnipotence rests on a False premise, thus the concept is not necessarily incoherent. Even if we concede that Pro’s definition of Omnipotence is incoherent, this of course does not extend to all possible definitions of Omnipotence, which Pro has yet to prove, given he has the burden of proof.

3. False, for A => B does not preserve Falsehood, rather Truth. That is, if A is True, then B is also True, whereas, if A is False, B is not necessarily False.

4. False, as per (3.).

5. Obviously False. But since Pro has the burden of proof, it’s up to him to prove otherwise, which he can’t do.

6. Invalid syllogism, for both its premises are False. Again, it’s up to Pro to prove that all tenets of all Abrahamic religions are irrational, which is evidently an impossible task to accomplish.

7. Invalid, for it follows from an invalid syllogism.

8. False, for what is irrational is not necessarily bad.

9. Invalid, for it follows from False premises.

10. False, for A is False & B is False does not imply A = B!

11. False, for it follows form False premises & is demonstrably Untrue, given the fact that Islam =/= Christianity =/= Judaism.

12. Sure, the law of non-contradiction.

13. False, for Abrahamic religions are distinguishable, thus must not bear the same judgment.

C. Invalid conclusion, for it rests on False & Invalid premises.

=> So, basically, Pro’s argument has been dismantled from the ground up. It would be interesting to see how he intends to pick up the pieces.

- Now, beside the basic argument Pro advanced, he made other blunders in the way, which says a lot about the incoherence of his though on top of the incoherence of his arguments. For instance, the alleged false syllogism:

1. All ducks are red

2. Socrates is dead, and we have killed him

C. Socrates is mortal

- Which may be be reformulated into,

1. A

2. B

C. B

- I understand Pro’s attempt at an example, though bad example. If we assume the premises of the above syllogism to be True, then so is the conclusion, necessarily by definition (the conclusion is the second premise itself). Thus, the syllogism is fine, regardless if its first premise is True or False or non-sequitur.

I must thank my opponent for presenting my argument in a structured form. I do not have any problems with his formulation of my argument except for two: premisses 8 & 9 (this will be expanded upon later). I will defend my case point-by-point, in much the same manner that my opponent has presented his criticisms.

1. My opponent has, instead of attacking my argument, merely given an example which supposedly refutes me. This fails on the grounds that he gives no reason to accept that the equation he gives has sense, while I have given a full logical argument proving that it does not. Quoting the dropped argument:

"To grasp the nature of the infinite, one must be able to transcend it and look at it in its totality, which requires an escape from the grasp of the infinite."

Unless my opponent can *show* exactly how the infinite can be conceived at all, this point stands.

2. By definition, omnipotence must have infinite qualities, for it implies that the omnipotent being can both do all that is possible and all that is not possible. If either of these is denied, my opponent must accept that there are restrictions on omnipotence, which is a contradiction in terms. For logic forms a limit of the world and of all sensical things, and therefore an omnipotent being is either bound by logic (making him not-omnipotent) or able to transcend logic (making him inherently ungraspable by finite beings which must operate under the framework of logic - else A is not A), and both destroy the concept.

My opponent has not offered a reason to believe that the definition of omnipotence I have used is not the commonly-accepted definition. I cannot possibly be expected to refute all uses of the word "omnipotence" - it's clearly reasonable for me to only have to defeat the term as used by theologians, and all things point to my having done so.

3 & 4. I have never claimed that a conclusion must be false if it does not follow from the premisses. I have argued that a conclusion, *in the context of the conceptualization surrounding it*, which is built on meaningless premisses must, itself, be meaningless. The terms *of the argument taken as a whole* become nonsense, for a syllogism must imply some relationship between the premisses, and this is much different from taking any premiss on its own, apart from the others.

5. It's nearly self-evident that Abrahamic religions are based on there being an Abrahamic God. I do not see how anyone could disagree with this premiss. It is essentially a given, and no reasonable voter would penalize me for this, else he should also penalize me for "assuming that English is able to communicate arguments" or some other nonsensical critique of common-sense assumptions.

6 & 7. These stand in light of my defence of the previous points.

8 & 9. Nowhere in my case had I implied that the irrational is bad. I have merely shown that all Abrahamic religions are equal, and, therefore, insofar as one is bad (or not bad), the others is equally bad (or not bad). Zero is still a value; if all Abrahamic religions are perfect, then they still share the same amount of badness.

10. Firstly, there is a distinction between something being false and something being nonsense. Falsity requires there to be some content which is false, while nonsense does not require content: it is the lack of content. My opponent has not even attempted to respond to my justification for this premiss, reproduced here:

"Nonsense is simply the lack of sense; there are no other qualities which can be ascribed to it, for, if there were, the nonsense would be sense. Therefore, all propositions of nonsense are equally empty and have no differences except in arbitrary linguistic form."

11, 13, & C. These stand in light of my defence of their premisses.

On the Syllogism Example:

The *structure* of the syllogism imparts a quality to the premisses beyond those of the premisses when taken individually. B does not follow from the premisses, for premiss B is not equivalent to the conclusion, and there is no senseful premiss linking the two. Therefore, regardless of the truth of the premisses alone, the content of the *parts of the syllogism when looked at in the syllogism* is null.

"A => B does not imply B => A!"

The point is that "B" is not just "B": it is "B as justified by A". They are two very different propositions.

1. It seems Pro ignored the example I gave. The infinite series “Sum [1 > ∞] [1/2^n]” is equal to “1”, thus precisely & completely definable. We know & conceive of what “1” exactly is. This is pretty basic maths stuff! Therefore, a concept which constitute an infinite property is not necessarily undefinable or incoherent.

2. Omnipotence, as a philosophical concept, is bound to have a philosophical definition, without which, no sound judgement or discussion may involve or stem from it. In this case, Pro has to demonstrate that all possible definitions of the concept ‘Omnipotence’ are necessarily incoherent. Starting from one definition, postulating it really has no definition, & then generalising on the rest, as Pro has done, isn’t going to cut it!!! More specifically, the Islamic notion of Omnipotence is defined in the Qur’an as:

=> shayin = ‘thing’ in Arabic, derivative from the root verb ‘shaa’ literally meaning: “willed into existence”. In other words, Omnipotence, as defined in the Qur’an, means Allah has power over all that which is willed - by Himself - into existence. In that sense, the definition of Omnipotence is fundamentally coherent, the same way “unmarried men are bachelors" is. Whether that definition has existential import or not is irrelevant to the fact that the concept itself is incontestably coherent.

3. Pro’s attempt to confusion here is not going to work either. At first, my opponent claims to argue for “the argument based on false premises is meaningless”, & then concludes on the meaninglessness of the conclusions of such arguments (the tenets of the Abrahamic faiths). This, however, does not change my rebuttal. An argument which follows from false premises, or pertains to 'meaningless' syllogims, does not necessarily make its conclusions false (or meaningless)!

4. If the tenets of the Abrahamic faiths follow from supposedly false (or irrational or meaningless) premises, then in no way does that make them necessarily false (or irrational or meaningless), especially if said premises are not even false! Particularly, those which follow from God being Omnipotent!

5. Bare assertion. Pro needs to demonstrate how all tenets of the Abrahamic faiths follow from God being Omnipotent, not just state it & except us to take his word for it! This is obviously an impossible task to accomplish, for these religions relate statements about extremely numerous & variable subjects, most of which don’t pertain to God.

6. & 7. Thus still refuted.

8. & 9. I stand corrected.

10. Well, Pro just made his case ten times harder to establish. Now, he has to prove that all tenets of Abrahamic religions are effectively Nonsense, i.e. having absolutely no sense. It is evident that a statement may be irrational while still making sense. For instance, “she stole his thunder” is an irrational statement, for thunder can not be stolen! Yet, it has pretty understandable sense to it. Therefore, given that not every irrational statement is a nonsensical one, Pro is required to prove how all tenets of the Abrahamic faiths are nonsensical! & I see no conceivable way where this is possible.

11. & 13. & C. Thus still refuted.

there is no senseful premiss linking the two

- “Socrates is dead” literally, in the strictest of senses, means “Socrates is mortal”.

1. I did not "ignore" Con's example - as I said, it's nothing more than an assertion in light of the fact that my argument contradicts it. If my argument is valid, Con's example must be false, no matter how commonly accepted it is. He must do more than say that it has sense; he must debunk the argument I have given which renders it senseless.

2. "Pro has to demonstrate that all possible definitions of the concept "Omnipotence" are necessarily incoherent."

One can define any word in any way they please. I could say that the symbol "table" refers to computers, and thus the proposition "tables are usually made of wood" would be false. In a debate over that proposition, however, it is clear that I would not be able to argue in the manner above, because no reasonable person would agree that the symbol "table" in the proposition in question would be used in the way I am attempting to use it.

In the philosophical tradition, all *commonly accepted* definitions of omnipotence are incoherent due to my arguments. It is the way people actually use the word "omnipotence" that is relevant, not just whatever hypothetical usages my opponent can think of. It is not my burden to tie definitions to symbols, but rather to deal with the *meanings* of the symbols in a consistent manner.

"Omnipotence, as defined in the Qur"an, means Allah has power over all that which is willed - by Himself - into existence. In that sense, the definition of Omnipotence is fundamentally coherent, the same way "unmarried men are bachelors" is."

I do not see how this avoids the problem I have pointed out, since "having power" implies an unlimited range of actions, which, as I have shown, is incoherent. Even if, as my opponent is likely to argue, "having power" means "having power within certain limits", it is clear that, *within those limits*, there are no further limits, which is absurd, since positing limits in the first place requires both sides of the limits to be known, a contradiction in itself if the limits are truly limits.

3 & 4. My opponent has not even attempted to tackle this point. His case rests on the idea that one can equivocate freely, substituting "a conclusion" (c) with "a conclusion as justified by x and y" (c'). I have shown that this is mere sophistry, and that c' is inherently different from c, so, when I say that c' is made false by its premisses being false, I am *not* making a statement about c in a vacuum. This neutralizes my opponent's rebuttals.

5. No reasonable person would disagree that the essence of religions is the existence of a transcendent God. A religion without such a God would not be a religion, and, thus, religions are inexorably intertwined with God. God permeates them completely. Again, this is merely an argument from definition.

10. "Well, Pro just made his case ten times harder to establish."
I have not changed my argument at all. It has been, from the start, based around nonsense.

"given that not every irrational statement is a nonsensical one, Pro is required to prove how all tenets of the Abrahamic faiths are nonsensical!"

I have already done this via my attack on omnipotence. I have shown it to be an ungraspable concept, and therefore it can have no truth-grounds; it is impossible to say what "omnipotence" means, and all attempts which have been made to do so have ended in failure. Asserting "omnipotence" requires one to eliminate the means one used to do so, ergo it is self-contradictory.

Quoting Wittgenstein:

"4.46 Among the possible groups of truth-conditions there are two extreme cases.
In the one case the proposition is true for all the truth-possibilities of the elementary propositions. We say that the truth- conditions are tautological.

In the second case the proposition is false for all the truth- possibilities. The truth-conditions are self-contradictory.
In the first case we call the proposition a tautology, in the second case a contradiction.

4.461 The proposition shows what it says, the tautology and the contradiction that they say nothing.
The tautology has no truth-conditions, for it is unconditionally true; and the contradiction is on no condition true.
Tautology and contradiction are without sense."

"- "Socrates is dead" literally, in the strictest of senses, means "Socrates is mortal"."

Only if the senseful premiss "All dead things are mortal" is accepted, which is done nowhere in the syllogism.

" A => B does not imply B (as justified by A) => A!"

Is this not clearly false? B (as justified by A) (B') surely does necessitate A *when B' is assumed*, for B' is only asserted iff A.

I like to thank Pro for posting his closing argument. & I also like to remind the voters that the burden of proof is on Pro.

Counter-Rebuttals:

1. Apparently Pro doesn’t understand how generalisations work. Premise (1.): “All infinite proprieties are undefinable” entails that all proprieties which are infinite, without exception, are undefinable (inconceivable, ungraspable…). In case there is an exception, such as the counter-example I provided (“Sum [1 > ∞] [1/2^n]”, among countless others), then premise (1.) is False. Period. Pro somehow expects his general assertion to be somehow axiomatically true without proof!!!

2. One: ‘table’ can not possibly refer to ‘computer’, the same way ‘white’ can not possibly refer to ‘black’. This clearly leads to a contradiction in terms. Possible definitions of a word are those bound by the linguistic & contextual meanings of the word. Two: Pro claims his definition of Omnipotence extends to all its commonly accepted philosophical definitions without giving any reason whatsoever why is that the case! Thus, his claim should be dismissed as bare assertion. Three: Pro’s contention against the definition of Omnipotence I provided is a total straw-man, for he ignored completely said definition & repeated his argument against his own definition, which has nothing to do with mine. More elaborately, the terminology ‘limitations’, ‘range of actions’, ‘within limits’… is completely irrelevant to the definition I provided the same way it is completely irrelevant to the statement “bachelors are unmarried men”.

3. & 4. One: as I stated in my previous round, Pro’s contention here does nothing to undermine my argument. To elaborate, Pro claims that "a conclusion c as justified by x and y" is False if its premises (x & y) are False. This basically translates to the syllogism: P1. x, P2. y, C. c , being False if x & y are False. Well, we all know this is obviously False, blunder which surely must’ve momentarily escaped Pro’s mind:

- Two: regardless of what Pro says, the following conclusions of his argument do NOT rest on the veracity of syllogisms containing premise (2.), they rather rest on the veracity of the conclusions which follow from premise (2.) themselves. Hence, Pro’s contention does not hurt in the least my rebuttal.

5. Again, Pro had to establish that all tenets of Abrahamic religions necessarily follow from God being Omnipotent, thus a given tenet (tenet_n) must pertain to the following formula:

P1. God being Omnipotent,

P2. ???

C. tenet_n.

=> Now, we don’t know what P2. should represent in this case! & Pro has merely assumed it exists without given us any viable reason why this is the case. Furthermore, scriptures themselves offer countless arguments that don’t even involve God. From where could Pro possibly come up with his generalisation about these faiths if it entails the dismissal of scriptures which make up very said faiths!

6. & 7. Always refuted.

10. Pro has not shown how all the tenets of Abrahamic faiths are senseless, as having no sense to them at all. He barely said some contradictory things himself, such as: “it is impossible to say what "omnipotence" means” while making such judgement on a definition he came up with it in the first place!!! For instance, with the Abrahamic faiths, there is the concept of ‘Charity’, the sense of which is pretty much real.

- Also, quotes must be referenced, otherwise they are to be dismissed.

11. & 13. & C. Thus, always refuted.

Only if the senseful premiss "All dead things are mortal" is accepted, which is done nowhere in the syllogism.

- Doesn’t need to be, for it’s true by definition.

B (as justified by A) (B') surely does necessitate A *when B' is assumed*, for B' is only asserted iff A.

- False. That would be affirming the consequent. LOL!

Conclusion:

- To recapitulate, across this debate, Pro has chosen to deal in equivocations, bare assertions, straw-mans… to advance his case. At one point, he talks about False conclusions, at another he straw-mans his own argument into talking about meaningless ‘syllogisms’, which he likes to equivocate again with ‘nonsense’. When talking about truth-value, ‘nonsense’, ‘meaningless’… are the wrong terminology to use, for these are not truth-judgements, merely linguistic or conjectural judgements. More so, Pro’s entire argument from the grounds up rests on False, undefended or dubious premises. Given he has the burden of proof, this means he has failed his case entirely. Particularly, Pro either failed to prove straw-maned, equivocated, or assumed the following:

1. All infinite proprieties are undefinable,

2. Omnipotence, being an infinite propriety, is necessarily an incoherent concept,

3. All conclusions based on an irrational premise are irrational,

5. All tenets of all Abrahamic religions follow from God being Omnipotent,

10. All things which are irrational are indistinguishable,

=> Now, even if only one of the above contentions is undefended, False or invalid, Pro’s case will still fail, as it does indeed.

- Who doesn't know what "iff" means! I don't know if you were deliberately trying to be confusing, or you jus don't know what you're talking about! But, "B iff A" =/= "B as justified by A". If you said, "B as sufficiently & necessarily justified by A", then, yes. Otherwise, you're going the wrong way of the implication.

Reasons for voting decision: Pros opening R1 premise is the indefinability of infinite which follows through to the concept of omnipotence and its infiniteness. Therefore, Abrahamic religions are irrational and incoherent as a result of statement 1 and 2. Con presents Set Theory to define infinite which produces a negative cascading effect against Pros linking logic. Pro and Con banter back and forth through rounds but, Pros circular reasoning does not negate the strength of Cons original rebuttal; infinite has been defined. All arguments which claims are made to irrationality, nonsense or meaninglessness all stem from this definition. Once this is been accomplished, the logic on Pros side does not follow through with connecting premises, which Con successfully points out. This was a very difficult debate to review. After rereading it several times it became apparent that what defined infinite was the crux of the matter. Both sides represented well which made for interesting reading.

You are not eligible to vote on this debate

This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.